Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

On Terrorism and Refugees

PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:30:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
What is your opinion on the immigration of refugees to the United States? Should the U.S. close its borders to prevent potential terrorist attacks, or should we focus on helping those in need?

I'd also like to ask about statistics concerning Islam and terrorism. I often see people express their hatred for Islam and state that most terrorist attacks are Muslim or that terrorism is unique to Islam among religions. There are also differing statistics about what proportion of Muslims are terrorists or are considered "radical." A commonly cited statistic that appears to be reliably sourced from the FBI states that 94% of terrorist attacks are non-Muslim; however, people often argue that this is irrelevant, as approximately 1/5 or 1/6 of Muslims are radical in their approval of controversial topics, such as stoning, extreme policies of Sharia Law, or even approval of terrorist groups. Because there is so much bias and emotionally charged views among these arguments, it's hard to see what is true or not.

I currently hold the position that we should assist Syrian refugees and that we should not discriminate against Muslim immigrants. I also do not view Islam as a good or bad religion, as I hold the belief that a religion is what you make of it. To put it simply, you will find what you are looking for, whether it be good or bad, in virtually every belief system.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 6:48:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:30:01 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
What is your opinion on the immigration of refugees to the United States? Should the U.S. close its borders to prevent potential terrorist attacks, or should we focus on helping those in need?

I'd also like to ask about statistics concerning Islam and terrorism. I often see people express their hatred for Islam and state that most terrorist attacks are Muslim or that terrorism is unique to Islam among religions. There are also differing statistics about what proportion of Muslims are terrorists or are considered "radical." A commonly cited statistic that appears to be reliably sourced from the FBI states that 94% of terrorist attacks are non-Muslim; however, people often argue that this is irrelevant, as approximately 1/5 or 1/6 of Muslims are radical in their approval of controversial topics, such as stoning, extreme policies of Sharia Law, or even approval of terrorist groups. Because there is so much bias and emotionally charged views among these arguments, it's hard to see what is true or not.

The nature of the terrorism is important to note. If any depressed teen shoots up a school because he felt like "going out with a bang", then the FBI would count that as terrorism. If we were to redefine terrorism as an act of terror which had a certain political or religious motive then I think we'd find that Muslims suddenly constitute a much larger percentage of terrorists in the United States.

I currently hold the position that we should assist Syrian refugees and that we should not discriminate against Muslim immigrants. I also do not view Islam as a good or bad religion, as I hold the belief that a religion is what you make of it. To put it simply, you will find what you are looking for, whether it be good or bad, in virtually every belief system.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 7:12:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 6:48:01 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:30:01 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
What is your opinion on the immigration of refugees to the United States? Should the U.S. close its borders to prevent potential terrorist attacks, or should we focus on helping those in need?

I'd also like to ask about statistics concerning Islam and terrorism. I often see people express their hatred for Islam and state that most terrorist attacks are Muslim or that terrorism is unique to Islam among religions. There are also differing statistics about what proportion of Muslims are terrorists or are considered "radical." A commonly cited statistic that appears to be reliably sourced from the FBI states that 94% of terrorist attacks are non-Muslim; however, people often argue that this is irrelevant, as approximately 1/5 or 1/6 of Muslims are radical in their approval of controversial topics, such as stoning, extreme policies of Sharia Law, or even approval of terrorist groups. Because there is so much bias and emotionally charged views among these arguments, it's hard to see what is true or not.

The nature of the terrorism is important to note. If any depressed teen shoots up a school because he felt like "going out with a bang", then the FBI would count that as terrorism. If we were to redefine terrorism as an act of terror which had a certain political or religious motive then I think we'd find that Muslims suddenly constitute a much larger percentage of terrorists in the United States.

I agree that statistics will change depending on how broad your definition of terrorism is.

For example, let's say it is an act of terror, violence, or intimidation which has a political motive (this is the definition provided by Google). Would Muslim terrorist groups fall under this definition? If yes, then would this not imply that religion is not their motivator but rather their justification, and their end goal is political in nature as opposed to religious?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 7:17:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:30:01 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
What is your opinion on the immigration of refugees to the United States? Should the U.S. close its borders to prevent potential terrorist attacks, or should we focus on helping those in need?

The United States is the world's sole superpower. The mantle of global leadership is on our shoulders. If we want to show other states that the US is compassionate and cares about the downtrodden, we should open our arms for a limited number of Syrian refugees. If we want to pause the inflow of Syrian refugees at least temporarily, I suppose that makes sense, but we need to do something.

The process of admitting refugees is extremely stringent. The UN evaluates the individuals who apply, and then the US State Department evaluates them again for another 18 to 24 months. The vast majority of people don't get through... if a person does so much as give a cigarette to a jihadist, it is questionable enough to merit attention (http://www.vox.com...).

Also, if we cut off Syrian refugees, not only will we damage our international credibility, we will strengthen ISIS. ISIS wants the West to become Islamophobic. If the US and Europe becomes hostile towards our own brothers who are Muslim, they will feel disenfranchised, and they will be more likely to either plot homegrown acts of terrorism or leave to fight for ISIS. It seems illogical, but just consider it from their point of view. If the US is demonizing your religion and your way of life, you won't feel like an American, and ISIS -- your "fellow Muslim" -- will seem more appealing. We should fight these terrorists while understanding that ISIS is contrary to Islam.

I'd also like to ask about statistics concerning Islam and terrorism. I often see people express their hatred for Islam and state that most terrorist attacks are Muslim or that terrorism is unique to Islam among religions. There are also differing statistics about what proportion of Muslims are terrorists or are considered "radical." A commonly cited statistic that appears to be reliably sourced from the FBI states that 94% of terrorist attacks are non-Muslim; however, people often argue that this is irrelevant,

I would think that a much larger percentage of terrorist attacks are inspired by radical Islam, to be honest. But terrorism is not endemic to Islam, it is the perversion of religious ideology in response to global politics. Islam is a religion of love, and Muslims are supposed to respect those who believe in a different religion... they don't consider them kafir and murder them in mass graves.

The Middle East -- in places like Iraq and Syria -- mimics hell. The vast majority of citizens are poor beyond belief, even though states like Iraq are blessed with an abundance of oil wealth. Democracy has failed so far due to the errors of liberal democratic parties (or the lack thereof), and thus democracy seems like a bad idea. The totalitarian governments are resented. The people are largely impoverished and they feel under attack from a godless West that promotes consumerism, the breakdown of the family and traditional values, and engages in "crusades" like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and increasingly elsewhere.

What is the alternative for them? Some extreme Islamist theorists have interpreted Islam as a form of salvation, as a way to restore the glory of the past caliphates. And so people think that an Islamic government is the only promising idea, because democracies and totalitarian states have failed to deliver prosperity. This is why people have become radicalized, because of the failure of Middle Eastern governments.

as approximately 1/5 or 1/6 of Muslims are radical in their approval of controversial topics, such as stoning, extreme policies of Sharia Law, or even approval of terrorist groups. Because there is so much bias and emotionally charged views among these arguments, it's hard to see what is true or not.

Also I see it this way... it isn't necessarily that they support ISIS, they view ISIS and extreme Islam as an improvement in the status quo. If you are a Sunni Iraqi, there is a good likelihood that you are secular or not very religious. This goes for most Sunnis in Iraq. The government though is ran by Shi'ites, and they ran the government to benefit Shi'ites, while exploiting you (too often cabinet ministers pledge their allegiance to their constituencies, not the Iraqi state). Not only is unemployment sky high, but there is rampant insecurity. The police is pretty incompetent or nonexistent. Electricity, clean water, and sewage is only found in the cities like Baghdad, so if you are in a rural area, you're out of luck. When your Sunni Iraqi brothers managed to win a plurality in 2010, the Shi'ites circumvented the constitution and managed to have their own guy reinstated as Prime Minister again... so there is no hope for you when it comes to Iraq's government. On top of this, the Shi'a government has not only attacked, tortured, and killed Sunni demonstrators who came about in the Arab Spring, but the Shi'a government has used the National Police to drive Sunnis out of Baghdad and major cities, and has killed people who don't comply.

Suddenly ISIS comes, and they offer you security and services if your clan/ town agrees to be part of their state. They actually provide you with some services and security.

You would obviously feel more favorable at this point towards ISIS. Now, ISIS may be killing Shi'ites and Yazidi Christians and may engage in suicide bombings, but this isn't affecting you right now. At least they can deliver your electricity and deal with garbage disposal (http://www.al-monitor.com...). To many Sunni Muslims, ISIS seems like a more competent government, and it is more favorable than their previous arrangement. And this will almost certainly change once/ if ISIS begins enforcing strict Sharia law. So the idea that most -- or even 20% -- of Muslims agree with these extreme ideas seems unlikely. They just see extreme Islam as an improvement compared to their corrupt governments, and this extreme ideology is simply a way for them to vent their frustrations.

I currently hold the position that we should assist Syrian refugees and that we should not discriminate against Muslim immigrants. I also do not view Islam as a good or bad religion, as I hold the belief that a religion is what you make of it. To put it simply, you will find what you are looking for, whether it be good or bad, in virtually every belief system.

I have to agree with what you are saying.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 9:09:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 7:17:01 PM, Contra wrote:

Also, if we cut off Syrian refugees, not only will we damage our international credibility, we will strengthen ISIS. ISIS wants the West to become Islamophobic. If the US and Europe becomes hostile towards our own brothers who are Muslim, they will feel disenfranchised, and they will be more likely to either plot homegrown acts of terrorism or leave to fight for ISIS. It seems illogical, but just consider it from their point of view. If the US is demonizing your religion and your way of life, you won't feel like an American, and ISIS -- your "fellow Muslim" -- will seem more appealing. We should fight these terrorists while understanding that ISIS is contrary to Islam.

I agree that demonizing Islam will create divisions where there don't need to be any. It would create a charged environment that would encourage discord and hatred between members, and would serve as a fuel for ISIS members to justify their cause and get people on their side. Unfortunately, even if this is self-evident, people do insist that ISIS members are correctly practicing Islamic teachings and do so in an attempt to demonstrate the evils of Islam or religion. As I said, people will see what they're looking for.

I would think that a much larger percentage of terrorist attacks are inspired by radical Islam, to be honest. But terrorism is not endemic to Islam, it is the perversion of religious ideology in response to global politics. Islam is a religion of love, and Muslims are supposed to respect those who believe in a different religion... they don't consider them kafir and murder them in mass graves.

If you believe it should be a much larger percentage, then what do you think the FBI did wrong? Do you think they might have been too broad in their classification of terrorism?


What is the alternative for them? Some extreme Islamist theorists have interpreted Islam as a form of salvation, as a way to restore the glory of the past caliphates. And so people think that an Islamic government is the only promising idea, because democracies and totalitarian states have failed to deliver prosperity. This is why people have become radicalized, because of the failure of Middle Eastern governments.

I am in agreement with this explanation.


You would obviously feel more favorable at this point towards ISIS. Now, ISIS may be killing Shi'ites and Yazidi Christians and may engage in suicide bombings, but this isn't affecting you right now. At least they can deliver your electricity and deal with garbage disposal (http://www.al-monitor.com...). To many Sunni Muslims, ISIS seems like a more competent government, and it is more favorable than their previous arrangement. And this will almost certainly change once/ if ISIS begins enforcing strict Sharia law. So the idea that most -- or even 20% -- of Muslims agree with these extreme ideas seems unlikely. They just see extreme Islam as an improvement compared to their corrupt governments, and this extreme ideology is simply a way for them to vent their frustrations.

This is an interesting explanation of the statistics I've seen. I was not aware that ISIS provided these services to the people as a way to side with them. I largely assumed that they would simply use coercion and not provide any alternatives.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 9:40:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Can you trust a man who when he finally comes out with his birth certificate can't even remember his own birthday.

http://youtu.be...
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 10:14:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:30:01 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
What is your opinion on the immigration of refugees to the United States? Should the U.S. close its borders to prevent potential terrorist attacks, or should we focus on helping those in need?

I'd also like to ask about statistics concerning Islam and terrorism. I often see people express their hatred for Islam and state that most terrorist attacks are Muslim or that terrorism is unique to Islam among religions. There are also differing statistics about what proportion of Muslims are terrorists or are considered "radical." A commonly cited statistic that appears to be reliably sourced from the FBI states that 94% of terrorist attacks are non-Muslim; however, people often argue that this is irrelevant, as approximately 1/5 or 1/6 of Muslims are radical in their approval of controversial topics, such as stoning, extreme policies of Sharia Law, or even approval of terrorist groups. Because there is so much bias and emotionally charged views among these arguments, it's hard to see what is true or not.

I currently hold the position that we should assist Syrian refugees and that we should not discriminate against Muslim immigrants. I also do not view Islam as a good or bad religion, as I hold the belief that a religion is what you make of it. To put it simply, you will find what you are looking for, whether it be good or bad, in virtually every belief system.

I think we should not accept any refugees or non critical people in from nations that have high levels of terrorism, support terrorism, and have large areas in the nation are controlled by terrorist groups. If this happened then the only people who should enter from those nations are goverment officials from that nations.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 10:42:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:30:01 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
What is your opinion on the immigration of refugees to the United States? Should the U.S. close its borders to prevent potential terrorist attacks, or should we focus on helping those in need?

I'd also like to ask about statistics concerning Islam and terrorism. I often see people express their hatred for Islam and state that most terrorist attacks are Muslim or that terrorism is unique to Islam among religions. There are also differing statistics about what proportion of Muslims are terrorists or are considered "radical." A commonly cited statistic that appears to be reliably sourced from the FBI states that 94% of terrorist attacks are non-Muslim; however, people often argue that this is irrelevant, as approximately 1/5 or 1/6 of Muslims are radical in their approval of controversial topics, such as stoning, extreme policies of Sharia Law, or even approval of terrorist groups. Because there is so much bias and emotionally charged views among these arguments, it's hard to see what is true or not.

I currently hold the position that we should assist Syrian refugees and that we should not discriminate against Muslim immigrants. I also do not view Islam as a good or bad religion, as I hold the belief that a religion is what you make of it. To put it simply, you will find what you are looking for, whether it be good or bad, in virtually every belief system.

Personally I think that the USA should not accept any refugees from Syria it should focus on ending the civil war through whatever means necessary and then investing in rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure of Syria. Giving a few thousand people residence in the USA is a token gesture that does nothing to solve the main problems faced by millions of people. It is also my belief only economically beneficial migration should be allowed and refugees should never be allowed entry. These individuals can be occasionaly dangerous and are more likely to have terrorist links then mdmbers of the existing population and are also an economic burden on a countries population. My migration policies woild consider solely economic factors and disregard religion totally obviously checks for criminal (including terrorist) links would be made and criminals refused entry.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:32:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 10:42:55 PM, beng100 wrote:

Personally I think that the USA should not accept any refugees from Syria it should focus on ending the civil war through whatever means necessary and then investing in rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure of Syria.

I find this to be a respectable position. Do you have a specific idea as to what form of investment should be given to Syria? That is, do you believe grants or loans would be more beneficial, and if there are loans, should we have higher interest rates?

Giving a few thousand people residence in the USA is a token gesture that does nothing to solve the main problems faced by millions of people.

This is true, but it does help solve the problem of the thousands of people we accepted. Of course, as you propose a long-term solution, I see why you would want to focus all efforts into ending the civil war and investment as opposed to regulating immigration.

It is also my belief only economically beneficial migration should be allowed and refugees should never be allowed entry. These individuals can be occasionaly dangerous and are more likely to have terrorist links then mdmbers of the existing population and are also an economic burden on a countries population. My migration policies woild consider solely economic factors and disregard religion totally obviously checks for criminal (including terrorist) links would be made and criminals refused entry.

Which population are you referring to when you say "members of the existing population"? Also, what are the statistics concerning terrorism among refugees? I would be under the impression that they are extremely low, as refugees are fleeing from the war and don't want to be involved with ISIS. Of course, I may be mistaken.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:34:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 10:14:08 PM, stargate wrote:

I think we should not accept any refugees or non critical people in from nations that have high levels of terrorism, support terrorism, and have large areas in the nation are controlled by terrorist groups. If this happened then the only people who should enter from those nations are goverment officials from that nations.

Is this because you fear that terrorists will infiltrate the country?

Do you know the statistics or probability of this occurring (that is, the probability that terrorists would be among refugees)? Do you know if such statistics exist? (I ask because I am not certain.)
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:45:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
We should take in all the Muslims we can, eliminate Christianty and watch our rights and culture disappear completely like Sweden.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:54:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I think the point Contra brought up is the most important thing to consider here. If we display blatantly Islamophobic reactions to terrorism, we're giving the terrorists what they want. It makes the terrorists' vision of "Islam vs. the West" a reality; it validates their worldview and makes recruiting new members even easier than it already is. Barring Muslims immigrants from entry into the US is not the answer. Obviously, there should be stringent security measures (e.g. background checks) to make sure that we aren't letting extremists into the country, but disallowing Muslim immigration is just going to exacerbate the problem.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:00:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:45:36 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
We should take in all the Muslims we can, eliminate Christianty and watch our rights and culture disappear completely like Sweden.

I agree that it wasn't a good choice for Sweden to welcome Muslims immigrants en masse, but the socio-political structure of the US is inherently different from that of Sweden. Ours is much more conducive to taking in and assimilating immigrants from different cultures. We can easily handle a limited number of Muslims immigrants if we're careful about it.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:28:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:34:10 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/18/2015 10:14:08 PM, stargate wrote:

I think we should not accept any refugees or non critical people in from nations that have high levels of terrorism, support terrorism, and have large areas in the nation are controlled by terrorist groups. If this happened then the only people who should enter from those nations are goverment officials from that nations.

Is this because you fear that terrorists will infiltrate the country?

Do you know the statistics or probability of this occurring (that is, the probability that terrorists would be among refugees)? Do you know if such statistics exist? (I ask because I am not certain.)

I know those facts, but I would one rather not take the risk, and two fix the root of the issue that is the areas where the terrorists are. This will ensure that the terrorists are weaker on a gobal level, and people will be much safer as an result.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:29:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:30:01 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
What is your opinion on the immigration of refugees to the United States? Should the U.S. close its borders to prevent potential terrorist attacks, or should we focus on helping those in need?

Western countries should accept refugees, but they shouldn't feel pressured to take in as many as possible in a really short amount of time just so it improves their image. They should slow down the screening and security processes as much as needed to ensure safety.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:34:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:34:10 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/18/2015 10:14:08 PM, stargate wrote:

I think we should not accept any refugees or non critical people in from nations that have high levels of terrorism, support terrorism, and have large areas in the nation are controlled by terrorist groups. If this happened then the only people who should enter from those nations are goverment officials from that nations.

Is this because you fear that terrorists will infiltrate the country?

Do you know the statistics or probability of this occurring (that is, the probability that terrorists would be among refugees)? Do you know if such statistics exist? (I ask because I am not certain.)

Plus look at nations that are in Europe, sense the high level of Muslim refuges rape has increased, look at sweden for a example of that, plus at least in the uk one of the major Muslim mosques are the type that you see in afghanistan. Do we really want that? If they want to be in the nation then they need to learn our cutler and be punished if they brake the law. At least in Europe they do not punish must muslims of rape due to many saying that they didn't know any better some nations such as Sweden has punish those in politcal office for pointing out rape increased when more Muslims came. I will aspect any plans that stop all Muslims that are not us civilizans from entering the us, but we should make sure they understand our way of life and laws.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:48:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:45:36 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
We should take in all the Muslims we can, eliminate Christianty and watch our rights and culture disappear completely like Sweden.

I wouldn't mind if Sweden's culture disappeared.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:51:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 1:48:40 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/19/2015 12:45:36 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
We should take in all the Muslims we can, eliminate Christianty and watch our rights and culture disappear completely like Sweden.

I wouldn't mind if Sweden's culture disappeared.

Then you have no right to be here saying western nations should let them in. You also have no right to say anything bad about us related to us if that is what you truly believe.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:52:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 1:28:30 AM, stargate wrote:

I know those facts, but I would one rather not take the risk, and two fix the root of the issue that is the areas where the terrorists are. This will ensure that the terrorists are weaker on a gobal level, and people will be much safer as an result.

I am in agreement that we should attempt to fix the problems that encourage terrorism, but I also feel like not allowing immigration would serve as a fuel for terrorist groups (as stated previously by others) and would encourage hatred for the United States.

I think the benefits of helping so many people would outweigh the potential damage of allowing them to immigrate. Another user argued that we could only allow refugees or immigrants that bring economic benefit to the country. What do you think of that?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:54:37 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 1:51:18 AM, stargate wrote:

Then you have no right to be here saying western nations should let them in. You also have no right to say anything bad about us related to us if that is what you truly believe.

It's just a joke, friend. I said that because of the highly progressive political "culture" that exists in Sweden.

I also hope I have not yet said anything bad about "us."
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 2:03:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 1:54:37 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
I said that because of the highly progressive political "culture" that exists in Sweden.

What's wrong with Sweden's political culture?
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 2:30:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 2:03:41 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 12/19/2015 1:54:37 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
I said that because of the highly progressive political "culture" that exists in Sweden.

What's wrong with Sweden's political culture?

Not the whole political culture, but its progressive components.

For example, there are instances of individuals who were silenced or labeled as racist for pointing out trends between gang rapes and immigrants. They are often called liars and assumed to be supporting hate speech, when in reality they are merely correcting the false perceptions of how the statistics are.

Another example would be when Swedish officials proposed policy that would provide money for former ISIS members and help them rehabilitate by reintegrating them into society and providing them jobs. At the same time, they directly denied any services for veterans. I should note that I am not 100% certain about this matter, as Sweden's actual policy may have been for providing money for refugees and not ISIS members, yet most sources do not state this.

Lastly, Sweden's progressive culture (really, the progressive culture in general) attempts to make everything a gendered issue. This is shown when Sweden wanted to change the order snow ploughing was done. That is, instead of first doing the roads that led to places of occupation, they would first do sidewalks or areas that led to schools. The reasoning was that the current order snow ploughing was done was inherently sexist (but not by the choice of officials), since women tended to walk on the sidewalks more than men, and men tended to use the roads more than women to travel to places of occupation.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 2:40:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 1:52:38 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/19/2015 1:28:30 AM, stargate wrote:

I know those facts, but I would one rather not take the risk, and two fix the root of the issue that is the areas where the terrorists are. This will ensure that the terrorists are weaker on a gobal level, and people will be much safer as an result.

I am in agreement that we should attempt to fix the problems that encourage terrorism, but I also feel like not allowing immigration would serve as a fuel for terrorist groups (as stated previously by others) and would encourage hatred for the United States.

I think the benefits of helping so many people would outweigh the potential damage of allowing them to immigrate. Another user argued that we could only allow refugees or immigrants that bring economic benefit to the country. What do you think of that?

True it could help us, but I would only want very small amounts to come in, and they would need to pass tests to be allowed in, they will also need to be though English, us laws ex. But I stand by what I said about nations with high terror levels.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 2:41:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 1:54:37 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/19/2015 1:51:18 AM, stargate wrote:

Then you have no right to be here saying western nations should let them in. You also have no right to say anything bad about us related to us if that is what you truly believe.

It's just a joke, friend. I said that because of the highly progressive political "culture" that exists in Sweden.

I also hope I have not yet said anything bad about "us."

Just making sure, there are to many that would say that wholehearty and to few to would try to counter that.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 2:50:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 10:14:08 PM, stargate wrote:
I think we should not accept any refugees or non critical people in from nations that have high levels of terrorism,

I support this, if only to keep the Americans out. ;)
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 4:16:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 2:30:23 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Not the whole political culture, but its progressive components.

For example, there are instances of individuals who were silenced or labeled as racist for pointing out trends between gang rapes and immigrants. They are often called liars and assumed to be supporting hate speech, when in reality they are merely correcting the false perceptions of how the statistics are.

Another example would be when Swedish officials proposed policy that would provide money for former ISIS members and help them rehabilitate by reintegrating them into society and providing them jobs. At the same time, they directly denied any services for veterans. I should note that I am not 100% certain about this matter, as Sweden's actual policy may have been for providing money for refugees and not ISIS members, yet most sources do not state this.

Lastly, Sweden's progressive culture (really, the progressive culture in general) attempts to make everything a gendered issue. This is shown when Sweden wanted to change the order snow ploughing was done. That is, instead of first doing the roads that led to places of occupation, they would first do sidewalks or areas that led to schools. The reasoning was that the current order snow ploughing was done was inherently sexist (but not by the choice of officials), since women tended to walk on the sidewalks more than men, and men tended to use the roads more than women to travel to places of occupation.

Fair enough. But I must point out every society has it's fair share of crazy liberals that are so far left, socially, that I can't think of an appropriate title. I wouldn't say this is only Sweden's problem.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 4:22:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 4:16:02 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:

Fair enough. But I must point out every society has it's fair share of crazy liberals that are so far left, socially, that I can't think of an appropriate title. I wouldn't say this is only Sweden's problem.

Yes, and I also recognize that there are extremes not just of liberals, but of conservatives as well. I try not to allow the radicals to cloud my judgement of entire political movements, even if there seem to be more radicals than normal.

But it is worth noting that Sweden seems to have a very influential progressive component relative to other countries, as it very deliberately accepts these views. I do of course recognize that these views are not unique to Sweden, but rather that they are more prominent and powerful in Sweden as compared to other countries. At least, that's my understanding of the situation.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 8:25:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:32:23 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/18/2015 10:42:55 PM, beng100 wrote:

Personally I think that the USA should not accept any refugees from Syria it should focus on ending the civil war through whatever means necessary and then investing in rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure of Syria.

I find this to be a respectable position. Do you have a specific idea as to what form of investment should be given to Syria? That is, do you believe grants or loans would be more beneficial, and if there are loans, should we have higher interest rates?

Giving a few thousand people residence in the USA is a token gesture that does nothing to solve the main problems faced by millions of people.

This is true, but it does help solve the problem of the thousands of people we accepted. Of course, as you propose a long-term solution, I see why you would want to focus all efforts into ending the civil war and investment as opposed to regulating immigration.

It is also my belief only economically beneficial migration should be allowed and refugees should never be allowed entry. These individuals can be occasionaly dangerous and are more likely to have terrorist links then mdmbers of the existing population and are also an economic burden on a countries population. My migration policies woild consider solely economic factors and disregard religion totally obviously checks for criminal (including terrorist) links would be made and criminals refused entry.

Which population are you referring to when you say "members of the existing population"? Also, what are the statistics concerning terrorism among refugees? I would be under the impression that they are extremely low, as refugees are fleeing from the war and don't want to be involved with ISIS. Of course, I may be mistaken.

I disagree with the idea of accepting refugees in general. It is very expensive for the number of people it actually helps. It's a token gesture unless you go for Germany's approach of accepting one million illegal immigrants in just one year where it becomes more of a strategy but in my view begins to threaten the economy, pressurizes schools, housing, healthcare and services in general.

These types of migrants are a security threat as people entering Europe on boats from Turkey into Greece illegally are so numerous inadequate security checks are made meaning Islamic state terrorists can potentially blend in with the masses and enter anywhere in Europe without major difficulty due to the schengen area of border control free travel in continental Europe. Luckily my country tge uk is separated from the redt of europe by the sea and is not a member state of the schengen free movement area, meaning we are able to check and prevent most but not all illegal immigration. Thinking more on it I agree though the individuals selected and flown over to the usa from Syria would be a low risk for terrorism. The UK is doing a similar thing. Selecting and checking individuals from Syria. The potential security threats are the people entering illegally without checks.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 4:52:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 9:09:05 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/18/2015 7:17:01 PM, Contra wrote:

Also, if we cut off Syrian refugees, not only will we damage our international credibility, we will strengthen ISIS. ISIS wants the West to become Islamophobic. If the US and Europe becomes hostile towards our own brothers who are Muslim, they will feel disenfranchised, and they will be more likely to either plot homegrown acts of terrorism or leave to fight for ISIS. It seems illogical, but just consider it from their point of view. If the US is demonizing your religion and your way of life, you won't feel like an American, and ISIS -- your "fellow Muslim" -- will seem more appealing. We should fight these terrorists while understanding that ISIS is contrary to Islam.

I agree that demonizing Islam will create divisions where there don't need to be any. It would create a charged environment that would encourage discord and hatred between members, and would serve as a fuel for ISIS members to justify their cause and get people on their side. Unfortunately, even if this is self-evident, people do insist that ISIS members are correctly practicing Islamic teachings and do so in an attempt to demonstrate the evils of Islam or religion. As I said, people will see what they're looking for.

I would think that a much larger percentage of terrorist attacks are inspired by radical Islam, to be honest. But terrorism is not endemic to Islam, it is the perversion of religious ideology in response to global politics. Islam is a religion of love, and Muslims are supposed to respect those who believe in a different religion... they don't consider them kafir and murder them in mass graves.

If you believe it should be a much larger percentage, then what do you think the FBI did wrong? Do you think they might have been too broad in their classification of terrorism?

I'm not sure, I just assume that a large plurality of terrorism is caused by radical Islam, based on what I've learned from the mass media...


What is the alternative for them? Some extreme Islamist theorists have interpreted Islam as a form of salvation, as a way to restore the glory of the past caliphates. And so people think that an Islamic government is the only promising idea, because democracies and totalitarian states have failed to deliver prosperity. This is why people have become radicalized, because of the failure of Middle Eastern governments.

I am in agreement with this explanation.


You would obviously feel more favorable at this point towards ISIS. Now, ISIS may be killing Shi'ites and Yazidi Christians and may engage in suicide bombings, but this isn't affecting you right now. At least they can deliver your electricity and deal with garbage disposal (http://www.al-monitor.com...). To many Sunni Muslims, ISIS seems like a more competent government, and it is more favorable than their previous arrangement. And this will almost certainly change once/ if ISIS begins enforcing strict Sharia law. So the idea that most -- or even 20% -- of Muslims agree with these extreme ideas seems unlikely. They just see extreme Islam as an improvement compared to their corrupt governments, and this extreme ideology is simply a way for them to vent their frustrations.

This is an interesting explanation of the statistics I've seen. I was not aware that ISIS provided these services to the people as a way to side with them. I largely assumed that they would simply use coercion and not provide any alternatives.

They use both... they might provide some services (I'm not sure of how widespread), but they also rely on fear and intimidation. Their tactic of assassinations, brutality, and acting like fanatics actually has a name, I'm pretty sure it is "Acting like wild tigers" (I can't think of the Arab translation at the moment).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan